Greens suffer another KXL setback

The State Department on Friday released a final environmental study of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that increases the odds the project will win approval from the Obama administration, delivering yet another disappointment for climate activists.

The long-awaited analysis echoes past State Department studies that found little evidence the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline would worsen climate change by triggering a big surge of oil production in western Canada. Despite some new language that could bolster environmentalists’ arguments, project supporters say the findings should remove any reason for President Barack Obama to stand in the pipeline’s way when he makes the final decision.

Story Continued Below

Along with the climate fears, the study also discounted climate activists’ claims that the oil funneled through Keystone will be exported from the Gulf Coast, mainly benefiting countries such as China.

But it also throws cold water on supporters’ claims that the pipeline will be a job-creating machine. While construction will directly and indirectly create an average of 42,100 jobs a year for one to two years, only 35 permanent jobs will result once the pipeline starts operating, the report says.

Still, the report elated the Canadian government, pro-oil lawmakers and other project supporters — although one backer on the Hill, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), said he feared that Obama will find new ways to delay making a final decision.

“We need to keep the pressure on the administration, both legislatively and in the court of public opinion,” Hoeven said.

Meanwhile, members of Obama’s green base were nursing reactions ranging from disappointment to outrage. They differed mainly on whether they still hope the president will take their side against the pipeline, which activists have built into a major test of Obama’s climate and energy agenda.

Friday’s report “is by no means the final word on the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress — a liberal group whose former chairman is Obama special adviser John Podesta. “Since we know this pipeline will significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution, I hope that President Obama will hold firm on the commitment he made in his climate speech and reject the pipeline.”

Less politely, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) denounced the study as a “sham,” pointing to accusations of conflicts of interest by a consultant working on the report.

“This process has featured multiple documented conflicts of interest, corporate failure to disclose relevant business ties, and a State Department more interested in greasing the skids than doing due diligence,” Grijalva said. “We thought we’d seen the last of this in the George W. Bush era, when profits came before science and wealthy corporate interests called all the shots.”

Russ Girling, CEO of Keystone developer TransCanada, said the opponents keep grasping at straws even as the evidence goes against them.

“No matter how much noise they make or how much misinformation they spread, the science does support this project,” he said.

The White House was trying to keep its distance Friday, saying the matter is a technical decision housed for now at the State Department. “These issues are complex — they require rigorous approach and assessments and that is what it is,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

The pipeline has become a seemingly endless waiting game, with symbolic meaning on all sides: Landmark of the North American oil boom. Litmus test for Obama’s seriousness about global warming. A source of uncommon friction between the U.S. and Canada.

TransCanada has been seeking U.S. approval for more than five years, and both supporters and opponents have been on edge for the new report’s release since late summer.

“This has been perhaps the most studied natural resources project in the history of the world,” Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said in a recent interview.